( 1 ) THESE two Appeals are disposed of by a common judgment as they arise out of a common judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Srikalahasti, in O. S. No. 20/87 dated 8-10-1991. In A. S. No. 105/92, the 6th defendant is the appellant and in A. S. No. 2740/93, the plaintiff-Bank is the appellant.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff-Bank viz. , Indian Bank filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 10,94,047-55 ps, with costs against defendants 1 to 11. The 1st defendant is a partnership firm. Defendants 2 to 5 and one late Adinarayana Reddy are the partners of Defendant No. 1 firm. Defendant No. 6 is the guarantor. Defendants 7 to 11 are impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased adinarayana Reddy subsequent to the filing of the suit, by orders dated 3-8-1988 and 30-6-1990 in I. A. Nos. 92/98 and 237/89 respectively. Defendant no. 4 died on 23-11-1989 during the pendency of the suit and his L. Rs. were not brought on record.

( 3 ) THE brief averments in the plaint are as follows: Defendants 2 to 5 and Adinarayana Reddy were carrying on business in partnership in production of hybrid seeds and marketing the same in India and abroad under the name and style of the firm Raja Superior Seeds (1st defendant ). They have entered into a partnership under a registered partnership deed dated 20-5-1981. Defendant No. 2 is the Managing Farmer of the 1st defendant-firm. The defendants applied to the plaintiff-Bank for an Overdraft facility upto a limit of Rs. 7-00 lakhs which was sanctioned. Defendants 1 to 5 and late adinarayana Reddy executed a promissory note on 21-4-1984 for a sum of rs. 7-00 lakhs promising to pay the same with interest at the rate of 4% p. a. , over and above the official rate of the Reserve Bank of India subject to a minimum of 14% p. a. with quarterly rests. The defendants availed the said facility. Defendants 3 and 4 deposited their title deeds pertaining to their plaint a and B schedule immovable properties on 23-4-1984 with an intention to create a valid equitable mortgage over those properties. They executed a memorandum of deposit of title deeds on 24-4-1984 acknowledging their deposit of the title deeds by way of additional security of the sum outstanding under the said overdraft facility. The 6th defendant guaranteed due repayment of the outstanding amount from the defendants 1 to 5 by executing a Deed of Guarantee dated 21-4-1984. S. Adinarayana Reddy, partner in the 1st defendant firm died leaving behind him his estate and interest in the 1st defendant firm and also the defendants 2 and 7 to 11 as the legal representatives who succeeded to his estate and interest in the 1st defendant firm. The defendants failed to pay the amount in spite of repeated demands. Hence the suit.

( 4 ) THE 1st defendant filed a written statement admitting that defendants 2 to 5 were carrying on business in the name and style of the 1st defendant under a partnership deed dated 20-5-1981 and that they have secured an overdraft facility and their executing the suit promissory note on 21-4-1984. The 1st defendant, however, pleaded that the interest claimed is exorbitant, excessive, usurious and arbitrary, that the 1st defendant firm is an agricultural unit and they are agriculturists, and that they are attracted by Act IV of 1938 and also the Usurious Loans Act. They have admitted that they had created an equitable mortgage and that the 6th defendant is the guarantor for repayment of the sum outstanding by the firm. Defendants 2 and 5 filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by the 1st defendant.

( 5 ) DEFENDANTS 3 and 4 filed a separate written statement admitting the execution of the partnership deed, that the 2nd defendant is the Managing partner of the firm, that they are only sleeping partners and that the 2nd defendant who is their close relative requested them to allow him to use their names for the purpose of taxation and other things and, therefore, they conceded their request. The partnership deed is a s